Tanks for the memories

For my money, the ultimate newspaper sports column would blast billionaires while torching socialism. It would hammer traditional American sports leagues. It would even touch up fans and mock their elected officials.

Express Newsletters

Get the latest news, sports and food features sent directly to your inbox.

And then, in the big finale, it would throw in a surprise twist that would make regular readers spit coffee onto their screen or the newspaper page.

Wish me luck...

Tank.

Tank for as long as it takes. Tank as if no one’s watching. Tank while you stop to smell the coffee, then tank some more. When everyone else zigs, you tank.

If modern sports has taught us anything, it would be that losers can be winners if they’re willing to be bigger losers than they ever thought they could be.

Through the miracle of tanking, sports teams can fight their way to the top by clawing their way to the bottom.

The last three World Series winners did it. The hottest team in the NBA’s Eastern Conference did it.

Tanking is such a touchy subject that even its proponents cringe at the term.

In a televised argument with Bryant Gumbel on HBO Real Sports last week, former Yankees star and current Marlins owner Derek Jeter argued that selling off assets to win later doesn’t equate to intentionally losing today. His players still want to win.

Major League Baseball Commissioner Rob Manfred — acknowledging that Kansas City, the Cubs, and Houston all took that approach — has denied allegations that those teams were “tanking.” He hates the word, but he likes the idea.

The Sixers, one of the NBA’s best teams, recently came out of the most protracted tank in memory. Euphemistically called “The Process,” it turned the NBA’s biggest embarrassment into a legitimate juggernaut.

The Astros called their tank-a-thon “a rebuild.” Jeter’s plan for Miami has been called “The Fix.”

Economists use the term “tournament theory” when discussing labor markets.

Tournament theory holds the most productive workers are paid the most money. That way, under-producing employees are incentivized to work harder.

The term has its origins in sports, where the best team or the best player is supposed to win. Winners get the most money and perks. Hard work is rewarded.

Until, that is, we get to the concept of competitive balance.

To build parity and keep as many fans engaged for as long as possible, leagues have enacted tweaks such as salary caps and luxury taxes. The goal is to keep all teams within reach of each other competitively.

Parity gives small-market teams a chance to compete with the big-market teams. Parity allows losing teams to stay close to good ones.

And for the worst of the worst, there’s the amateur draft, where losing teams get access to the best new players.

None of those measures are good for long-term. And the draft, in particular, has turned into a gaping fjord of intentional choking.

“There’s always been reverse incentive tied to the draft,” said Andrew Zimbalist, a sports economist who teaches at Smith College. “Trying to create competitive balance is noble and worthy, but you have to be careful how you do it.”

Competitive balance, as it’s constructed now, is akin to sports communism. Yes, I realize that reeks of talk radio “hot take” logic, but it’s true. In a truly competitive environment, leagues shouldn’t get involved. Let the teams play and figure it out for themselves.

But time and time again, teams decide it’s much cheaper, Zimbalist says, to tank.

In MLB, while Cleveland, the Dodgers, and Yankees spent years writing big checks to land great players, Houston, KC, and the Cubs were tanking.

And those teams weren’t mailing it in for a mere season. In Houston’s case, it was a three-year, 100+ losing games-per-season commitment in order to stockpile young talent.

That sort of commitment makes the Astros the Daniel Day Lewis of tanking. The Sixers? Meryl Streep.

Only one sport is devoid of tanking.

Soccer. Yes. Soccer.

The best way to get rid of tanking, Zimbalist said, would be a system of promotion and relegation, used in every soccer league outside of the US and Canada.

Under that system, the best teams would win the usual stuff, but the worst teams would drop to a lower league. That makes the games between cellar-dwellers significant, creating the late season interest which leagues covet.

Sadly, because of billions already spent, that idea cannot be implemented in any of the nation’s most significant sports.